QUIET DIPLOMACY
QUIET DIPLOMACY: Doesn’t work when you’re dealing with a complete wanker.
(Robert Mugabe)
picture: dunno source, via our lol builder. lol caption: Mr. Mister
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous Poor little Suzie would need years of therapy… | Thanks for all that coal, Santa! Next »
» 377 comments
-
Recent Comments
eldritch on SPEECHLESS Ceefax on And then the nasty ol… Ceefax on SPEECHLESS Ceefax on SPEECHLESS Sqwirk on Vladurday: AT THE URINAL MrOpinion on PHOTOSHOP… Jane St.Clair; also … on Vladurday: AT THE URINAL Default User on Vladurday: AT THE URINAL CustomCharacter on MRE wickets ebil twin on Mr. Yang Was Just Asked 
Cheezburger Network Blog
. . . like Saddam Hussein. That’s why sometimes you have to go to war.
Yeah, except for the terribly inconvenient facts that sanctions WERE working, that there were NO WMD, that there was NO connection between Saddam and 9/11 and that every reason the administration has given for getting into this war has been based on lies and deliberate distortions.
You fail.
Look at the name… the crap not only makes your pecker small, but retards thinking… Hence ‘roid rage…
And you can bet he hasn’t got the shriveled up raisins to enlist himself.
Chicken hawk. Ptui.
He procures child prostitutes?
He is? I thought you were doing that today. Dammit, must I do EVERYTHING!?
^Liberal debate
^ Republican in denial since we are shopping for him
^ howling retard with shrivelled nads…
@steroid
deathwurms nads are probably waxed…
Hate to disappoint but no. I be natural.
I thought waxing was de rigeur in BDSM…
Depends on the kink.
That it does and depends on who is in charge. BDSM is as varied as the people in it.
Which makes it all the more fun! AIM me tonight.
Subtlety fail there…
YO! WURM SHE WANT’S VIRTUALLY DOMMING AGAIN!!!!
Completely unrelated topic and nunya, personally.
Um no, she wants to talk. That thing friends do. Speaking of which, we are closing early. Ta for now.
Ta? you’re thanking me for what?
and that was a rush to denial… it’s quite funny… amazing comic timing.
Just answering the charge. Like I said, it’s not related, and it’s nunya.
Hell, you’re the ones posting the crap on a public satire site…
The sooner you two get it out of your systems, the better…
I need a rolleyes smiley for this place…
%_% ?
I don’t think so Rho, looks a bit like a mime to me.
Get what exactly out of my system? O_o…
I admit to flogging my woman and calling her my slave. What exactly do you think I am hiding? There is plenty of truth to insult me with, no need to make up shit now.
Now I have to think on a proper eye rolling smiley…
9_9 ?
or how about:
‘_’ ?
although that second one sort of looks like it’s looking to the heaven for guidance.
Weird, now that second one looks asian, it looked so different when I typed it. Huh.
I think 9_9 works well.
In the same way that I wish Clinton had come clean about Monica from the outset of that debacle, I wish that Bush had been clear and up front about wanting to invade Iraq. I’m not sure that many people would have objected had he said what he really felt. Personally, Sadaam made me nervous in the same way that Kim Jung Ill, Putin, and Pakistan make me nervous now.
You might be on to something there. If Bush had just focused on the moral argument instead of dicking us around with the song & dance about WMD’s, he could at least have kept the moral high ground. I doubt he would’ve been able to bring the Brits and Spaniards along for the ride if he had gone that route, though. Or maybe he could, who knows? In the final analysis, Bush made a conscious decision to circumvent the will of the people by being a sneaky bastard, so he goes down in history as a bad president. (For that and other reasons.)
Moral High Ground? What moral high ground? We declared independence from the Brits because we saw them as a foreign power controlling us unfairly. A lot of people died in that fight. And now we’ve become what we broke away from.
Entering into Iraq was crap. It was an unjustified move on all precedents. We’d just destroyed his army 10 years previous…he had no tanks, no artillery, no air support (he had some helos, but no planes). We’d wiped his anti air batteries clean during the Gulf War. We had no positive proof that he had WMD’s and more importantly than that, IRAQ NEVER ATTACKED US. Constitutionally speaking, we had NO GROUNDS, moral or other, to enter into that country.
Al Queda was not friends with Hussien…Saddam wasn’t a muslim.
And I can’t say “I told you so”, because I was all for entering Iraq. Like so many other conservatives I misunderstood the term “Walk softly but carry a big stick”. The important part is the FIRST part. Walk softly, don’t ruffle feathers, don’t warmonger, don’t set up some governements and crash others. If all else fails then you go for the stick, and you hurt them…you don’t selectively attack the leader of a country, you attack the country. Why? Because if we go to war it’s because they attacke dus
If we went to war over “moral values” then we’d have to go take on China, N Korea, about 14 countries in Africa, a big chunk of the Subcontinent, most of the middle east, etc etc
who the hell are we to tell another society what their morals ARE to begin with? The moral high ground can only be attained when both parties play by the same rules.
And I’ll leave you with this: How would you feel if China dropped in on us? I can tell you right now we’d fight them off with every single ounce of strength we had…so how can you blame other countries for doing the same to us when we invade their soil.
Moral High ground indeed. Just what we need, another 50 years of current American Foreign policy, where we had the “moral high ground” when we were propping up the likes of Osama, Hussein, Noreaga, and Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
You want to live in fear of middle eastern WMD’s? You go right ahead. I quit living in fear 7 years ago when I quit being a Republican. I’ve got guns, and if someone from outside the US comes wading in here looking for a fight and tries to take my block, they’ll have to get through me and mine. And If I should die, at least I’d die knowing I was fighting for my home, and not some screwed up unConstitutional agenda.
And that’s why I go by BattleCry.
Um, to answer only one part of what you said, Clinton said that Sadaam had WMDs.
Yeah, trust the same guy that slashed the CIA’s budget by one half. Fact is we had little to no good info and our “We’re down with the UN just as long as they support what we wanna do” attitude (Hans Blix…oh that guys a riot, fun at parties, but no good as a weapons inspector) doomed us.
Screw the UN, we need to rebuild our international network, this alone can prevent another situation like this. Well, that and getting rid of the CFR. Thinktank indeed.
And again, we continue the Dem vs Rep two step. Dance puppet Dance.
I take it you are a person of simple pleasures?
If by simple you mean porn, PS3, shotguns, and Jack Daniels. why yes. You’d be correct.
Wang.
I like finding common ground with people. : D
As long as that ground is US soil I’m all about it
Well I’m in IA so I am smack in the middle of that soil.
OH here, howdy Big Ten….man do we suck at football
It is okay, I don’t even watch. I became a gamer and fantasy nerd.
Damn you and your high speed internet (shakes fist)
I’m bunkered down with dial up only.
I have DSL at home but I don’t online game that much. Mostly just console and D&D. Dial up is painful so you have my sympathy. @_@
Yum. Wang and Jack Daniel’s
That’d sting somewhat worse than ginger, I would have thought… and a post-coital cigarette would be downright risky.
I’m really hoping she’s discussing a different orifice for at least one of those…
There again, JD by mouth carries its own brand of sting, eventually.
I prefer Jack Daniel’s then wang. If consuming both at once, you need to be doing it doggystyle to avoid any kind of “stinging”of the sensitive areas.
Please forgive any spelling errors, I cannot see the full window.
Love that Firefox…
I use Safari now, and it expands the window as you type. Pretty handy.
How are pop-ups and redirects on Safari?
right now, I have no problems with either of those. The main issue I have is that when you hover over a link you can’t see what you’re hovering over because there is no bottom bar on the browser. Aside from that, it’s good.
That sounds promising. I miss IE, but couldn’t ever
find a good pop-up blocker for X2 64. The best blocker
I found didn’t stop the redirects.
Clinton said it, then Clinton demolished them.
True that!
Also the CIA budget cuts STREAMLINED a top-heavy CIA, never
tidied up after the Cold War. Our problem during the run-up to
the Iraq war was not lack of intelligence due to budget cuts. The
problem was that the CIA was only allowed to deliver the intel
Shrub *wanted* to hear.
That’s a lot like the Govenor Bush sales pitch back in 1999…
Very Well Said my friend, and clinton is a con artist, his foundation might be impressively successful, for his blueprints were decietful as a muthaBEEPBEEP!
Saddam wasn’t a Muslim
?
?
?
That’d be a look up for you.
Don’t be silly. You’re the one made a claim that’s ridiculous on its face, so you’re the one has to produce some proof.
You go look it up.
NO YOU!!! NO YOU!!!
Well I double dog dare you! I triple dog dare you! Well I had sex with your mom! Well she’s been dead for five years, so she could use the action!
O_O
” In the final analysis, Bush made a conscious decision to circumvent the will of the people by being a sneaky bastard”
`
One of my instructors in college made a great impression on me by asking (rhetorically), “If your positions are indefensible, why hold them?”
`
I don’t agree with b*sh’s decision to attack Iraq, and I don’t think if was for any reason other than to take their oil and/or resolve some daddy issues, but I agree with n8. If you sneak around because you know you’re in the wrong, you add dishonesty and cowardice to whatever made the decision wrong in the first place.
Well, since the US have allowed India to get nuclear materials, and the Russians have just successfully tested the first co-developed Missile (oddly enough, in the same week the US agreed to allow fissionable materials and special steels to be sold to India – I think it was the third week in October)
oops clicked the wrong bit…
To continue
the world just got a whole parcel less safe :¬)
The nuclear genie is out of the bottle. If it’s any comfort, Mutually Assured Destruction kept nuclear armageddon at bay throughout the cold war. It appears to work, and at this stage trying to deny nuclear know-how to anybody looks like an exercise in futility. They might as well post up the A-bomb blueprints on Wikipedia.
Pakistan doesn’t have the capability, and if it did, it would have it shut down by force within the month…
What do you mean Pakistan doesn’t have the capability? They definitely have nuclear capability. They have an estimated 50 nuclear warheads.
Delivery system that works reliably. All well and good being able to blow one up, but they’ve yet to test a delivery system that didn’t blow up on the pad or go wildly off target.
If they wanted to place one reliably, they’d need to use a transit van to get it where it’s going, since a bomber would be shot from the skies. Even then a lorry with that much trace leaking radiation, weighing in at several tonnes more than normal would get noticed at the border, or on the way as it left great gouges in the road…
That was an image that has me containing laughter at work… Thank you.
Every president in history has armed what will become a problem later. Doesn’t make it a good moral argument for NOT dealing with the issues at hand.
Yeah. Like the South?
*lost* Do what?
Just shooting a rubber band through your “every president in
history” phrase. I shouldn’t take such easy shots, though.
LOL, in my opinion that can mean so many things but I will hold my tongue since I don’t know what specifically you are referencing. Needless to say, I was amused. : D
It is the specifics that was tripping me up.
) If she’s referring to the North arming the South and helping the war, haven’t we dealt with all of those issues on the Civil War and separate but equal threads? ;o)
aye yai yai
Oh, yes, that’s right. If he had said during his 2000 campaign that he and Cheney were already planning on invading Iraq as soon as they could come up with a good excuse, they would totally still have won the election.
GTFO.
I never said they would have, nor am I making that argument. I’m just saying what I WISHED would have happened. Ease up on your disdain of me for a split second.
There was never a good excuse for invading Iraq after 911 and the Afghan war.
Opening a second war front while still fighting the first is just plain dumb…
I actually agree with you, but I think the war in Afganistan was handled poorly to begin with. The ’shock and awe’ had the same ‘oooooooh’ factor as the Fire over the Thames during the fireworks of New Years, 2000.
I’ve referenced it before, and it never gets old… Operation Barbarossa.
That old saw? As if we have anything to learn from history, hur-hur…
Well that was Hitler’s fault for getting involved in a land war in Asia.
My wang feels loved.
But almost as well known, is never wager with a Sicilian when death is on the line!
HAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA–thud.
*is thankful for my immunity to iocaine powder*
>_>
*looks at Buttercup and wonders about my choice in useless women…*
<_<
*is no longer thankful for my immunity to iocaine powder*
I’ve always remembered that line as have an “Ah” at the beginning. Like: “Ahhahaha Ahhahaha Ahha…” *thud*
-
*is being nitpicky* ; )
*joins Jane in nitpicky-ness* You don’t mess with the Best Movie EVAR
Pssst! Slan! It’s “Never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line.”
@Jane & froo: Your nitpickynesses must stop. I suggest that you put down your rocks and I’ll put down my sword and we all try to kill each other like civilized people.
*giggles* I love that line.
Well, um, froo’s comment, but I love rho’s too. Darn it all, I love all of you guys! *group hug*
Sportsmanlike!
Or I could just kill you now?
I think the odds are *slightly* in your favor at handfighting.
Is not my fault I’m the biggest and strongest. I don’t even exercise.
I think I’ve figured out why you give me so much twouble.
And why is that? Oof…
Well, I’m used to fighting gangs, for charities, that kind of thing.
And why should. Oooff… Make a difference?
Well, you use different moves…….when you’re fighting half a dozen people……..than when you only……have to be worried…….about………one *thump*
I do not envy the headache you will be having but rest well and dream of large women…
who is frooella de vill?
Someone new or someone old giving froo a hard time?
Tis me, under a new nom de plume
It’s a joke carried over from another thread.
Basically, opening a second front while embroiled in a messy land way with no fixed front, and a bunch of people trained by your own side when they used to be your best buddies was insane.
Pretty much.
Let’s see, hmm, who in history opened up a second front after his frontline troops were already committed. Let’s see, had the strongest army in the world, kicked everyone’s heinies in a matter of weeks. Gosh, I’m trying to remember his name; his country got creamed because after five years of war his soldiers needed training and re-equipping, plus of course that second front…
Hey, does anyone hear the stealthy approach of a wang?!? Man, I’m too scared to continue!
WHo can judge a good excuse?
This isn’t disdain of you, it’s disdain of your particular delusion that there was a reason for the Iraq war that this country would have accepted as legitimate if presented honestly. If Bush and Cheney had been honest about their intentions before the election, not only the war, but Bush’s presidency itself wouldn’t have happened.
You could be right. But the fact is that if he had (as n8 said) taken the high moral ground and at least been honest about it, he wouldn’t be going down in history with this as his legacy. He might have been a one-term president, but is that so bad?
I expect that having two one-termers by the name of Bush in so short a span might have been an unrecoverable blow to the family honor. They would have (and did) move heaven & earth (and hell for good measure) to ensure that that didn’t happen.
You’re right. I’m just wishing
) It would please me to no end if we were to have ONE, count em, ONE person in the White House who wasn’t morally bankrupt and spouting crap in order to get in and stay in. It would be nice to have leaders with actual principles.
1/20/2009, save the date.
*stand back to wait and see* Hasn’t happened yet, I’m still reserving judgement
I truly hope you’re right.
You are reserving judgment? Congratulations for having the shortest New Year’s Resolution EVAR!!
It isn’t New Year’s, so I’m good for a week
And FTR, I may have strong opinions, but I try to never judge. I may not always hit that mark, but I honestly try. Do what you do, that doesn’t mean I have to agree with it or like it.
I’m sorry, but I’ve laughed myself to tears. Your post
is blurry. Good thing I’m a touch typist…
Hey now! Judging someone and judging an act are two totally separate and not equal things! I can disagree with an act to the point of hating that act (my best friend, case in point) and still not necessarily disagree with the person doing the act. I think that civil disobedience is wrong because it breaks the law. That doesn’t mean I think those people guilty of breaking the law should go to hell, or be looked down upon! A lot of church members and churches in general get tripped up on the not judging thing because they feel the need to condemn the person. So I can say with a straight face that I try not to judge people, and I can mean it.
-
So
-
P.S. I was wondering….would a Pothos grow under florescent light?
I like your operative word, “try,” so I’ll leave that
one alone.
A Pothos will grow anywhere, as long as it’s kept above
freezing and inside or in shade. Florescent lighting doesn’t throw the whole
spectrum of light needed for most plants, but Pothos is
next to indestructible.
I want to grow something in my office at work. It’s rather dull in here, especially at night when all of you lovely people have gone on to your actual lives
Maybe a plant will spruce things up some.
-
*doesn’t have green thumb……or green anything* *sigh*
Do you have a window?
No, I’m a drone now
My desk job doesn’t come with the perks. I do have a file cabinet that is up off the ground and close to the lights, though.
This may sound like a pain in the buttocks, but you could rotate plants from home. Most house plants can survive a month in fluorescent lighting, and the variety of changing plants may be nice. Ferns do well, but usually like more humid conditions than heated spaces provide. Christmas Cactus is nice this time of year, and is easy to propagate, too.
It is a pain, hehe, but a viable option if they’ll even let me have a houseplant up here.. I’ve got to do something with my Asparagus fern…..it’s not getting enough sunlight and is getting brown on one side. Also, that weird plant I told you about that I don’t know what it is…….it’s dead, so it’s going in the trash tonight. I am the kiss of death on houseplants, I think. The ivy is ok, but like you’ve said, cockroaches and Pothos will live through a nuclear holocaust, lol. At least I haven’t killed the plumeria yet.
If a plant dies, call it a “flippin’ annual” (even if it isn’t),
and move on. The asparagus fern can go in the ground
in the spring, if you like.
I live in an apartment for now. No springtime plantings for me
I got a friend a dwarf rose bush at the supermarket some years ago, dont’ remember the variety but the blooms were hardly bigger than a thumbnail and a very rich red, and that bush throve for years in fluorescent light in an office. Ironically, it died off when she became a telecommuter and brought it home to sit in a window; it couldn’t take short days and was irretrievable after the first winter in natural light.
A lot of people make that mistake with miniature roses. They look like houseplants, but thrive in full outdoor sun. That poor little thing didn’t stand a chance. It’s a marvel that it survived the narrow florescent light spectrum, even.
That was the weird thing, it didn’t just survive in fluorescents. It grew, blossomed and was quite surprisingly full. It wasn’t until it was moved into a window and natural light that it got scraggly.
That is weird. Our pupils adjust too rapidly for us to gauge how much dimmer indoor light is, compared to outdoor light, even just inside a window. Roses need six hours minimum of full sun to thrive. A plant will often bloom when it’s stressed, putting the last of its energy into making seeds (even sterile hybrids), in a species survival effort. You described the plant as full, though, so that’s not consistent, as a stressed plant will usually throw leaves to conserve energy. You’ve got me stumped.
Oh, fer crying out loud… Satan will skate to work.
*slips Fester the Cliff’s Notes to Dante’s Inferno*
Side note, I LOVE the descriptions of Hell.
Ha! everytime I hear that phrase it always makes me think of Dante’s hell. it’s basically me favorite one.
froo, you disappoint me. Shouldn’t Hell be made more miserable than Dante’s description?
I hate to say it, but I think you’re going soft in your old age.
Dante’s got a pretty harsh description of Hell as a whole. It’s only when you get to the last ring that it’s iced over and you find Satan encased in ice. My literature profs at college said that’s to make you really stop and take notice, because anyone can describe hell with flames. I think being encased in ice in varying degrees (in the circle before, I believe) would be pretty horrible, especially with the winds of Hell blowing up a constant snowstorm that if you sinned enough you weren’t even able to duck your head to get away from.
Oh, that *is* horrible–like the *mall,* almost…
One of the things that struck me about ‘eternal torment’… Humans are adpatble.
We’d just get used to it.
That is why I would have alternating bouts of extreme pleasure and pain. Would take longer to adapt. Then when they finally got used to it anyway and tried to rely on hope of pleasure, I would wallop them with something painfully mundane. Keep them guessing.
At least I would be amused.
Yes, but humans have been better at torment than the devil.
It’s why Crowley spent the middle ages drunk.
and given infinite time, even your idea would get old.
It is why I would have to reinvent and eventually put people back in a shadow of their lives with just enough hope so I can make them suffer. The worst hell would be back in this skin but unable to even get the reprieve of death and having to suffer life all over again and again.
Then I set them on fire in random intervals. It might get old but I would do my damnest to make it take a while.
As far as the adapting goes, I think the effort involved would peter out before too long, a la Sissyphus (sp?) and his rock. Or any of the myriad other tortures that the Greek Gods thought up. They were an inventive bunch.
We get used to virtually anything… In the end, any
repeated torture, once you’d gone through the dread,
the insanity, realising you can’t die etc, the whole mess would become farce and descend to idle conversation and the occasional ‘lookitdafunnymunkee’ as the devils try to get us into torment…
I thought the same thing many times myself, Unc. Also came to the conclusion that any God who would sentence his creations to eternal torment just for turning out the way He no doubt knew they would… is a sick bastard unworthy of worship. If such a person was running a country (as versus a cosmos) we would liberate the heck out of that place.
I do wonder about memory torture. See if I was going to control all aspects of the soul shell to be tormented, I would think it unwise to settle just for physical torture. You would need to affect the mind as well as the emotions.
Strip memories, horrify, repeat. Give them just enough of their mind back to recognize it and remove the rest. Hard to adapt when you are lacking a lot of your past. Part of the torture would be the feeling that you are missing something. You adapt through past experiences. If you are denied the part of you that can actually recall that experience, then it stays fresh.
I try to have these things figured out… Just in case. Never know when I might have to destroy somebody repeatedly if given the supernatural powers to do so.
So yes, if you left their minds intact, yes they could adapt. Take a good bit away and you can extend the horror so much longer…
>_>
<_<
What?
As I said, humans are far better at that sort of thing. you had the advantage out of the box it seems… only real shame is that you chose to breed.
you really only subtract from the species…
Coming from someone who doesn’t have two intelligence cells to rub together, that’s priceless. You may be book smart, but you’re truly the dumbest individual I’ve ever met.
@froo: Assuming you have never met Unc IRL, you can’t gauge his “dumbness” (as contrasted with “book smarts”) from your vantage point, now can you?
A person without “two intelligence cells [sic] to rub together” wouldn’t be book smart, and couldn’t post on PK, let alone gain respect for his insight and perspective. Insight and perspective are gained through BOTH intellectual pursuits and life experience, to which he has referred.
I think you are letting your emotions get the better of you. Unc contributes much to PK, though you may be blinded to that understanding by your personal feelings.
What you said isn’t true, regardless.
I am letting my emotions get the best of me, and I can admit it. Fester pushes my buttons because of his knee-jerk hatred of anything remotely religious, and his double hatred of anything that I post. He strikes me as the kind of person who just can’t be happy with anything, and I see no need for the vitreol he spews on a daily basis. I will agree that he is intelligent, well-read, and a very good contributor to PK. I will temper that by saying that the manner in which he tries to get his point across is so idiotic as to make him no better than a common troll.
I appreciate your clarifications in the post above. I’ll leave most of it alone, as it seems to present your opinion more sincerely than the previous one.
Injecting a religious belief into a rational argument presents an irrefutable position. “Because I believe $Deity said so” halts all further debate. No one can tell you what you *believe,* so, by definition, reasoning ends at that moment. Typically, you continue wanting to engage in debate after pulling the brakes on reason and logic. Why?
Whenever one presents his *belief* as a counter to a rational argument, frustration on the rational side is inevitable. Using religious beliefs as a fail-safe is the equivalent of putting fingers in ears. It’s a cheap trick, and so is pretending to be religiously persecuted when called out.
I think you ought to try arguing without a deus ex machina, and see if you can’t hold your own. You may surprise yourself.
I reserve the right to use religion as an argument when called out on anything having to do with personal beliefs, church beliefs (as in Baptist or Christian), or when gay rights are used against the religious aspect of the
I also reserve the right to think of Fester as an ass who is beyond redemption, but that’s just because he’s a crusty old man with far too much baggage that he tends to heap upon people. And it’s an opinion. Are we good? 
argument. Deal?
-
P.S. I don’t think that reason and logic are mutually exclusive to religion, however, considering where we are and the people posting, I will withhold my more fundamental beliefs for other forums. Cool?
@rhorho:
Coming from a (relatively) similar heart-space as froofrou, believe me that it’s surprisingly hard advice to follow. And it’s not because one is enslaved to the religion’s philosophy (or the Deity’s philosophy – froo would undoubtedly point out the difference between the two, as would I).
Having said that, I think that you’re spot-on in the critique above – and you’ve managed to be more pin-point accurate (and more caring to boot) than Fester’s incoming missiles. I’m a quarter through the way through a Bachelor of Divinity, and “arguing without a deus ex machina” is vital to my own thinking through the course… it also marks me out as a little dangerous, too. Froo, your frustration is a real one – never give up, but rho’s point is a good challenge, too.
Iron sharpens iron. Gotta love that.
I’m going to borrow that line, you know. “Arguing without a deus ex machina.” Any extant copyright?
@froo: Of course, if the topic is religious, your religious opinion is called upon. You know that wasn’t what I was addressing at all, right?
As for your opinion of Unc, that’s not my deal, and also has nothing to do with anything I was addressing.
Religion and faith are distinctly different to me. One takes a lot of memorization and practice; the other, a leap. I don’t see the connection with *external* logic and reasoning, but that’s a nice side issue. Again, it has nothing to do with what I was addressing.
I’ll take your answer as a complete pass on the issues I brought up, and a thinly veiled effort to return to the spirit of your first post.
Oh, well. You have your purpose for being dodgy, and I have my notions as to what that purpose is.
@OMG: Thank you for your kind words. Please understand that none of my points were directed at you. You are quite capable of asserting yourself without the need to hide behind a wall of silence when countered.
By all means, my words are copyright free!
I’m not being dodgy intentionally. Chalk it up to frustration over not being able to make my points in ten posts or less and having to deal with nidnucks at work all night.
-
Injecting a religious belief into a rational argument presents an irrefutable position. “Because I believe $Deity said so” halts all further debate. No one can tell you what you *believe,* so, by definition, reasoning ends at that moment. Typically, you continue wanting to engage in debate after pulling the brakes on reason and logic. Why?
In most of the arguments that I have invoked Deity, there has been a clear cut reason. In the case of gay marriage, the main opponents are religious, so it stands to reason that religion is a main factor and isn’t out of line to be invoked. I’ll give you that some of my arguments that have swung that way have done so through sloppy reasoning on my part, but in the case of many LOLs and the resulting comments, I’m not out of line.
Whenever one presents his *belief* as a counter to a rational argument, frustration on the rational side is inevitable. Using religious beliefs as a fail-safe is the equivalent of putting fingers in ears. It’s a cheap trick, and so is pretending to be religiously persecuted when called out.
I’m not sure I AM pretending to be religiously persecuted by anyone here except Fester, and we all know that he has other issues with me that have nothing to do with religion. If I’m missing something obvious, I apologize for my density and will consider myself pwned if evidence can be shown.
I think you ought to try arguing without a deus ex machina, and see if you can’t hold your own. You may surprise yourself.
I think you are a very wise woman, and I shall be taking your advice. I could even throw a scripture in here to bolster what you just said, but I won’t
). I had to leave work and we went to ‘megalo mart’ to get some baby things. And, FTR, I completely agree with your assessment of religion vs. faith. But, consider that a lot of my faith has to do with things I have personally witnessed. Which is why I don’t see logic as being mutually exclusive to fact. It doesn’t apply in every case, but it can apply. And before you say anything, I know the fallacy of that reasoning, because I can’t cite things that I have personally witnessed.
-
I didn’t mean to seem dodgy earlier, and I wasn’t running away by taking too long to answer this (whether that last comment was directed at me or not
-
OMG, I have so much love for you right now
Holy crap, sorry about the wall o’text!
It was a mouthful, but like my beautifully godly wife says about her own flatulence, “ahhhh – that’s better, isn’t it?”
One of my great challenges at this moment is being on the more liberal side of politics but maintaining a decidedly conservative protestant/evangelical view within Christianity. It often involves coming at cross-purposes, and it means that you really need to think on your feet a lot.
Froo, you argue from a hard, hard place, and I love how you don’t compromise… our problem is always going to be that points coming from our direction can come off as utterly lacking in compassion.
Never give up, m’lady!
OK, here’s the problem I’ve got with all this. And here’s the reason why I can’t accept your “deal,” froo.
AMENDMENT I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….
Let that sink in a minute. I’ll wait.
The FIRST thing the founders of this country put into the Bill of Rights is that the Church can’t dictate the laws.
So. When we’re talking about what the law is or is not, what it should or shouldn’t allow, the dicta of your church and/or your personal religious enlightenment are irrelevant to the discussion. Full stop.
THAT is why I cannot accept your “deal” on your stated terms. It’s got way too much weasel room to re-inject exactly what the Framers insisted must be avoided.
The First Amendment was a limit to both sides. They didn’t want to have a church tell the government what to do, but they also didn’ t want the government to tell the churches what to do. It would be harmful both ways. So you’re right, but you didn’t go far enough with your statement.
-
As far as how my personal enlightenment or the dicta of my church is relevant depends on the topic. When we were discussing gay marriage, I never had a problem with the marriages themselves, only that people were going against the dicta of their own churches in order to make a point. That’s the reason I mentioned it at all in the first place.
@froo: I think we’re as clear as we can hope to get, except that I was addressing your statement that you “don’t think that reason and logic are mutually exclusive to religion.” By the time you addressed the issue, it was twisted into the notion that you “don’t see logic as being mutually exclusive to fact.”
…and now you see my *headdesk* there.
I’ll clarify: A distinction exists between internal and external reasoning vis a vis religious thought. Internal reasoning of religious and related ethical, “limbic system” issues is different than external reasoning, applied to secular, “cerebral” issues.
Slan covered this distinction brilliantly:
IMO, Unc calls you out when you cross the line of distinction noted above. You react by accusing him of religious persecution, when he criticizes the points that you have presented. Why else would he single you out, and not other religious people here? His style seems harsh and tenacious at times. I believe it to be born of frustration, and intolerance for logic meltdown.
If you peek out from under the construct that your religious beliefs are under fire, you may be able to see the big picture here.
I’m not trying to pwn anyone. I’m sincerely going for clarification only.
@Slan & DWN: You two ROCK!
Bang howdy, froo, you’re quick on the draw with the Free Exercise clause. Pity it’s not relevant to the discussion – nowhere on this forum has anyone posited that the law should dictate to the church. But the church is sure as hell trying to dictate the law.
Is this what they call asymmetrical combat?
*sigh* This is my problem….I’m not clearly stating my points, or something. The only thing I said about religion was that it SEEMED like people wanted to force churches into marrying same-sex couples, not that they were. That morphed into an argument about whether or not that was actually happening. I never ever ever said it was. I said that because junior members of the clergy were going against their superiors, it made the church look silly and brought them into the legal aspect of the argument.
-
I’m not sure how much clearer I can state this……the churches have NO BUSINESS DICTATING THE LAW. Ditto on state or federal governments dictating what churches have to do (which hasn’t been done. Yet). Junior members of the clergy, or any other members of the clergy who want to perform same-sex marriages outside of what their church has publicly stated that they will do should, in my opinion, leave the church first and then go do whatever the hell they want. As should anyone who is in a place not doing what they feel should be done.
-
As far as me using religion or religious beliefs in an argument about same-sex marriages, considering that the main detractors of same-sex marriage are religious figures using their own teachings to say why it’s wrong, then using it in an argument isn’t out of line. I don’t personally believe it, but if you only get one side of an argument, what good is there in having a discussion?
-
And me invoking free exercise of religion was to make sure that the whole thing was stated. You guys call me all the time if I don’t give both sides of an argument, or if I leave something out. There is nothing different with me pointing out that you’ve left out half of the story, even if that specific half hasn’t been mentioned yet. It saves on confusion later.
-
I’m out. I’m done with this argument. I’ve made my views clear, and I’m done.
Slan, Rho, that came off a lot more bitter than I intended. I apologize for that. I will do my best to (as I’ve said) make my point in ten posts or less in the future, and I’m just going to have to stay away from the religious aspect for a while. I’m sorry for the tone of that post.
-
Slan, I know your disdain comes from me pissing you off in another LOL, and I’m sorry. I will try to win back your respect, as you have all of mine. Rho, well, you know
-
I’m sorry guys. I’ll chill for a while.
I accept that you’re done, though I’m not sure you were
directing any comments at me.
Needed to refresh page before posting the above comment.
re 2nd post: I accept your apology.
Actually my disdain was coming from a toxic blend of devil’s advocacy and fuzzy explanation that came across as veering between fuzzy thinking and evasion of the question. Now that we’ve had a better chance to break down the argument and explain what’s going on more clearly – in text and subtext both – I think we can call a truce with a much better understanding.
Let me underline the point I made below (I think it’s below anyway). I strive at all times to distinguish between reactions to positions or actions and reactions to people. Most of the time I’m pretty good at that, but I do slip now and then. I still and will ever maintain that advocacy of torture as policy is inconsistent with humanity. It was unfair of me, however, to pronounce you inhuman rather than simply inconsistent, and I regret it.
I’m glad we’re good
)
-
And, FTR, I’m not trying to start anything, but I never actually condoned torture. It comes down to a Sophie’s Choice for me…….if you know you can get something that will save a nation, do you save the nation or consider the needs of the one? (remember, I said IF you know). I know that torture doesn’t work in every case, and I’m certainly not for it. But desperate times call for desperate measures, and if the Iraq war were to that point, what would YOU do? (clarification: it’s not to that point. I’m presenting a hypothetical
You said you weren’t trying to start anything, but I cannot leave your statement alone. Please read about the information obtained from torture, and please rethink your position about good decisions coming from desperate times. Please.
^times=measures
Hypothetical question here: If you had someone in your custody who you thought knew something about the kidnapping of your child, knowing what you know about torture, would you torture him to find out what he might know?
-
I know it’s not really the same situation, but people handle desperate times differently than others. Where is the link to the torture thing?
specious comparison from the resident Right wing nut job…
One expects barbarity from the individual. Me, I’d start at the ankles with a pneumatic nail gun, then move to wrists, then knees, then elbows, then shoulders… since you ask. Government, to warrant respect should be better than the sum of it’s parts. however, where does Govt stop? They think you may have done something, so they beat it out of you (obviously, this doesn’t apply to Texans, where ‘Justice’ happens only if you’re clean cut andf you can get clergy to say you’re a good boy after aiming your car at a punk)
I have to love it when Christians advocate torture as BAU methods of extracting information, then bring up individual nastiness to justify it, while pleading imperfection.
Last time I’m saying this…..I’M NOT ADVOCATING TORTURE. I don’t think that torture is the way to go. But you can’t broad brush that torture never works and that it should never be used any more than you can broad brush the other way. Individual cases deserve individual responses, and what worked last week might not work this week.
-
Besides, that was a hypothetical question only. I DO NOT AGREE WITH TORTURE.
-
As far as aiming your car at a punk and getting away with it…..there are corrupt judges and clergy all over the country. Texas doesn’t have a lock on crazy.
It does when the Jury says that if the Punk was driving we’d be looking at the death penalty…
BTW, that was on Amarillo local TV immediately as the left the court having given the guy probation.
simple black and white question – is it ‘right’ to use torture?
or does its use simply make you what you fight? If it makes you what you fight, then you’re the bad guy… Welcome to Hell :¬)
Like I said, it’s a Sophie’s Choice. What is the Greater Good? Is there one? Or are we all just going to hell anyway?
So how exactly do I subtract from the species now? I would love to read the rationale here. I already suspect what cute little justifications you will use but I am curious to see if you come up with something else instead. You do surprise me from time to time.
@rhorho: Um, I love you too? Just taken aback by being told randomly that I rock.
None at all, I was simply being unpleasant :¬)
NO, because I would want the *truth* out of him. READ
ABOUT THIS TOPIC, BECAUSE YOU’RE TALKING OUT
OF YOUR ASS ABOUT IT!!
Froo, you still haven’t read a damn thing.
If kidnappers had my daughter, why would I use a method of extracting information that 90% of the time yields total fscking bullsh!t?
And why in HELL would I use those 90% fscking bullsh!t methods on anyone I picked up randomly at the scene where she disappeared, like the Bush regime has?
Because, under duress, and with the 10% certainty, individuals are mostly apes with a stick.
Torture works in Milgram space, where in we ‘believe’ authority figures. It’s how Serbs could go home and play with their kids before bed time, after a hard day shooting Croat children…
It’s the horror of being what we are.
Actually, if I was to capture a kidnapper of my child… Hmm, lemme think.
I would strip them naked and set them on fire outside my door. No questions unless I wanted to be nice first. Then when I was done, BBQ. Then I would look over their personal effects that I had removed to see what I could glean that way.
So no torture unless you consider talking to me torture. Just some cruel execution and moving on to see what else I could learn.
Rho, where is that article again? After a Google search I’m finding the results on torture somewhat divided.
Here it is. [LINK]
Here’s another one.
For anyone without the patience to clicky da link:
As for Khalid Sheikh Mohammad himself, who (as Jane Mayer writes) was waterboarded, reportedly hung for hours on end from his wrists, beaten, and subjected to other agonies for weeks, Bush said he provided “many details of other plots to kill innocent Americans.” K.S.M. was certainly knowledgeable. It would be surprising if he gave up nothing of value. But according to a former senior C.I.A. official, who read all the interrogation reports on K.S.M., “90 percent of it was total fncking bullsh!t.” A former Pentagon analyst adds: “K.S.M. produced no actionable intelligence. He was trying to tell us how stupid we were.”
Definitely not so bad. He might also have been a zero-term president, which would have been even better. All that talk about isolationism during the campaign when he had this in his back pocket all along. He’s got at least three separate spots in the Eighth Circle with his name on them.
He would have had at least one term, I think.
)
-
(there was another paragraph to this post, but I don’t feel like deflecting laser shots today
Self made legacies to some… mistakes to the rest.
truth be told, the new world order is a movement heavier than any president can comprehend and with time, you will all see what I mean.
Oh, look everybody: A mystical seer of what is to come! What’s
the count up to now???
@_@
The NWO lot have been doing their thing for years…
Based on observation, as a conspiracy, the Illuminati are damned inept
Yes, but boy can they make a casserole…
Alas, honesty in a politician wins no elections. Selectivity!! THAT’S the way to go! *hands frou another pack of those Frenchified ciggies* I can’t use them now, alas – the pack you left on the table back there killed me. Good, tho!
You got killed by a FRENCH CIG???? *wonders at pdq’s intestinal fortitude* Dude, they’re FRENCH. How difficult could they be to smoke?
)
-
Barring wine and cheese, there’s nothing the French take more seriously than cigarettes! I don’t think they let French kids out of primary school unless they’ve passed limp-wristed cig-flicking with an B+ or better.
You forgot the lip curl: In France, it’s impossible to get past the third grade
without being able to blow a smoke ring while saying “Stoopeed Amehricahns” with a snarl.
When do they do the flexibility tests to check and make sure you can touch your toes without bending your knees?
FROOELLA?!?! If I hadn’t already died, the laffings would have done it now!
That’s Amehricains. And the French smoke mostly Indonesian tobacco, nasty heavy stuff that make Marlboros smell like sage incense.
What can I say? I was a delicate creature. Too many years of other abuse. The straw that broke the camel’s back and so forth. And now I have this miserable hacking cough for eternity! Feh. Being killed by a Christmas roast, now that would have been preferable…
How about a flaming pudding? With a nice dollop of cream?
Was talking with a friend I’m going to be visiting in Northampton, UK in a couple weeks. The Christmas pudding was set alight using Jack Daniel’s of all things. A damn sight better than the Bacardi 151 more commonly used, but really, and c’mon, Jack Daniel’s? Fester, what say you?
JACK DANIELS? Sorry – shouting… that should be interesting – and pretty nice, I should think. Possibly burning down some Southern Comfort might add something, too. We generally use brandy… also good, and better than Bacardi, as you say…
My only problem with that argument is that no one died in the Lewinsky scandel. There is a hella big difference between lying about a blow job and declaring war on a sovereign nation. That’s apples and oranges.
I’m just talking about the lying in general. I’m not trying to compare moral arguments. Other than the fact that personally I wish the leaders of our nation were above it all. In a perfect world, they would be.
The last President who tried to be forthright and earnest has been universally trashed as a weakling.
Carter had other problems that don’t have anything to do with him being honest. And honesty does not make a weakling.
That’s all a part of his inability to be a back room wheeler dealer and a good bluff at cards…Call it what you want, but that’s not what we want in a President.
Self-serving lies. Maybe that’s the distinction I need to make here.
Distinction WIN!
No, but not being assertive does. Face it, he was a damn nice guy. Not a hint of evil near him…but he was just too nice, didn’t look like he could rumble.
My inner dork opens to reveal a thought of how that reminds me of when Kirk was separated from his evil half. Without it, he just couldn’t make decisions…
LOVED that episode. LOVED the novel representation. It really does speak for how humans need both ‘halves’ of themselves to function.
I am going to get flamed/shot/etc for this but I was never that fond of the NG series. Always preferred Kirk. There, I said it.
I loved Kirk, but there is nothing sexier than Picard saying ‘Make it so.’ I would make it so any time he asked me to! hehe.
My ranking has Sisko and Picard tied for the lead, well ahead of Kirk, with Janeway bringing up the rear. Archer doesn’t even rate.
Janeway, Sisko, and Archer…..piffle. Kirk and Picard RULE. And Wesley Crusher can go mate with a Borg.
Ya, Patrick Stewart does have the voice but the character is very meh for me. I do like Sisko who also prefers Kirk. I didn’t even bother to watch the one with Archer in it and was too busy oggling Seven to pay attention to anything Janeway had to say.
@froo, I can only assume you didn’t stick with DS9 into the Dominion War story arch. Sisko is at the very least on par with Picard. Also, Picard never achieved god-hood, so I have to rate Sisko higher.
I didn’t watch DS9 at all, I’m afraid. At the time I didn’t have the channel it came on because my parents only had an antenna, and it didn’t pick up UPN. So I never got into the series. I only got into TNG after it was off the air watching reruns on Fox. Sisko’s voice never did what Picard’s does to me, though, and I’ll always hold that man in MUCH higher regard. Especially since he hung out with The Man, Kirk
-
On a side note, I really like William Shatner, but my respect for him took a major hit this year when I found out that he went all prima donna about the new movie coming out. He wanted to be in it, and when he found out it would only be in a flashback (as he died in the last movie dealing with him), he went ape and refused to do it. *sigh*
Well, as far as oratory goes, in the later seasons Sisko just pours on the vocals. Really, the show improved dramatically after Sisko started shaving his head. (Season 5, I think.) I can slop a few GCreds your way at TVTorrents if you want to give DS9 another shot…
Ya, I keep my memory of Shatner airlocked and avoid reading anything recent about him. I plan to preserve my good memory for as long as I can before reality ruins it.
You need to watch Boston Legal. They allow him to be the nut that he is in real life, and it TOTALLY works. Luvs me some Shatner!
That requires me to watch television… Damn.
DS( was just Babylon 5 without the balls…
If Star Wars is PC, and Star Trek is Mac, then assuredly B5 is Linux.
DWN, you can probably find at least some sample episodes on hulu.com – that’s how my kid is getting caught up with Buffy.
I’d love to watch DS9……I liked the shape shifter…..and I’ve drawn a blank on his name
Odo?
-
Anyway, Slan, I never watched much Buffy, but I got hooked on Angel right about the same time I got hooked on Charmed. I’m sure that Angel s in no way as good as Buffy, but it served my purposes at the time
I dunno- DS9 was like Star Trek Cosby…
Do you all know that Majel Barrett Rodenberry died?
link to Wired article under name
I has a sad about Majel Barrett Rodenberry.
The original ST wasn’t bad for its time.
TNG was lacking in any females that I could respect. They were all drama queens, not convincing as professionals. And Wesley Crusher made me gag–mating with a Borg is too good for him.
DS9 rocked.
Voyager was fun, if you could get past Janeway’s ‘Elmer Fudd’ voice when she was supposed to be angry.
In Enterprise, the men were all drama queens–behavior unbecoming of an officer.
And Buffy was WAY cooler than Angel. Angel needed some prozac.
…But I’m not opinionated, or anything!
Google Captain Pugwash videos for my opinion on Janeway.
Hi-ho me hearties! We’ll breach the new galaxy…
But you gotta admit, Janeway looked better in peach silk than Kirk ever did.
I try not to imagine Kirk in Peach Silk to begin with, let alone bother with a comparison. Then again, I haven’t seen the OS in ages so who knows what I have selectively forgotten.
alas, for thruth shall set ya free and nothing less!
Namaste
If it’s Carter, the man was a filthy liar who engendered nearly all the trouble we’ve had in the Middle East since 1980…
I’d not call him a weakling, I’d just say he had a hard act to follow in Nixon, in terms in bloodthirsty, nasty, interventionist foreign policy…
I think the problems in the mideast were started a lot earlier than that. Say, when we supported the Wahhabi clerics uniting with the House of Saud to unify Saudi Arabia?
Why do you think so?
Because I think the House of Saud is responsible for a lot of the US’s problems, and wahhabism is responsible for a lot more? Al Quaeda’s leaders are (or were, prior to our invasion of Iraq) all from the Wahhabi sect of Islam.
Correct… however, most of Carter’s admin just aggravated the situation.
and gave everyone new toys…
Everyone lies. You lie, I lie, we all tell little white lies all the time. It’s what allows us to get through our lives without completely alienating the people around us. I DO make a distinction about the type of lies being told and how they affect other people. Point of fact, I actually agree with you that Clinton should have told the truth right away, if only so that it would have nixed the witchhunt and stopped wasting taxpayer’s dollars on something that was none of the governments business. On the other hand, the fact that he did lie about it is in no way similar to the Bush administrations lies about the Iraq war.
The problem with lies when coming from the Oval Office is that those lies affect the country. Either they are sending young men and women to fight in a war from which they might not return, or they are causing a witch hunt that ties up the country, or they are causing the middle class to suffer needlessly. I agree with you that everyone lies. No one is perfect. But I also agree that there are different types of lies being told. When the Commander in Chief tells them, for whatever reason, if they are used to serve his needs, then said lies are wrong no matter what the context.
-
We’re agreeing, but in a round-a-bout way
The difference, I feel, is that Clinton’s lie in itself wouldn’t have affected anyone outside of his marriage if Congress hadn’t decided to make an issue of it. There was a certain segment in Congress that wanted to get Clinton on something so bad they were willing to go to any lengths to do it, no matter how much time and money were wasted. That isn’t something you can pin on Clinton, you can only really say that his lying about it made the situation worse. At the end of the day though, as annoyed as that makes me, it still didn’t cost any lives and it doesn’t make family members wait for a year or more constantly thinking the next phone call is going to be the one that tells you your loved one didn’t make it.
I am sure there was something else but they would probably have incriminated themselves if they tried something else. Best to just dick about with blowjobs. However, I do support your point. It was between him and his harpy.
Vince Foster ?
That is viewed as an urban legend, even though for a suicide he was REALLY committed.
Oh that’s it, let’s keep having this arguement.
NO ONE DIED WHEN CLINTON LIED!!!
Dance puppets, Dance.
If you’re talking matters of degree, then you’re right. Trouble is, the remainder of Clinton’s presidency was taken up with the matter, to the point that he, and any efforts he could have made in leading the nation were hamstrung as a result. NO fun there.
As froo has said many times over, if he had simply said, “Yes I did it, and it’s none of your business…Next question,” then he could have finished his term giving Bush more good policy to unravel.
To be fair, the part after the quotes is mine, not froo’s, necessarily.
Good point, but you missed mine entirely.
Stop Carter v Regan v Bush I v Clinton v Bush II.
This is not getting us anywhere and let me tell you why. For 8 years the Neocons struck the right chords and played the right notes to send out the army that is the conservative movement in this country to put up a smoke screen on their behalf.
To everyone that they said “Smaller government” and “lower taxes”..to those of us that bought the promises made, we turned our backs to them to fight what we thought was the good fight and while our backs were turned they stabbed us and twisted.
The left and right LOVE it when we, the regular folks, fight FOR them. because it means that we miss little things like the unConstitutionality of the Federal Reserve, the CFR, the IRS, about 80% of all federal programs…the rampant abuse of power from both sides. For every lefty that screams “OIL MAGNATE!!” there’s a righty that can scream “TED KENNEDY!!”, or the entire state of MA for that matter.
This fighting amongst ourselves helps shield ALL politicians from having to the ONE thing that could actually fix a lot of our problems:
Read, and then implement, the principles of the Contitution of the United States of America. They are scared sh*tless that the vast majority of us might actually read that document and then ask them if we’re following it.
And to anyone that says the Constitution is outdated and serves no purpose…I find that the people that say that, say that because it directly conflicts with their own personal agenda. See Antoine Scalia.
There should only be one agenda in politics, and that’s following the laws of the land, or changing, or amending them as modern socitey changes as it is meant to be changed or amended, not through the judicial branch and activist judges….from EITHER side.
Every time any of you get into a Dems vs Rep debate, you dance the dance of puppets. The reason being is that neither party actually has any interest in the well being of the nation, they are only interested in keeping power away from the opposition and they will both screw over single one of us to make it happen and along the way, they rape the Constitution.
8 years from now, those of you that supported the Chosen One will be looking around at all the broken promises and if we are very very lucky, you’ll feel like many conservatives feel now.
I don’t expect you to believe me or listen to me….I sure as hell didn’t listen to any of you until it was too late.
*bows to Battle Cry’s WIN*
-
*gives Battle Cry a WIN Statue*
-
*kisses Battle Cry’s feet for the WIN*
-
You have no idea how much I love you right now
This is froo, not prejudging. Lovely.
If you will read Battle Cry’s post, you will see that (he? she? can’t remember) is equally slamming both sides for being idiots and only out for their own gain. God help us if we ever get a politician who cares more for the people than they do about their own coffers or their own party.
-
It’s not a pre-judgment, it’s a judgment based on Battle Cry’s post, which I loved.
I gathered that you loved his post, but you can’t say you are giving Obama a fair shake, then turn around and applaud a prediction of his failure.
Oh, and I read his post, thankyouverymuch.
*needs a damn disclaimer on every post* *sigh*
-
The part I was applauding was when Battle Cry branded ALL politicians, regardless of affiliation. “Every time any of you get into a Dems vs Rep debate, you dance the dance of puppets. The reason being is that neither party actually has any interest in the well being of the nation, they are only interested in keeping power away from the opposition and they will both screw over single one of us to make it happen and along the way, they rape the Constitution.”
-
That’s what I was referring to. I’m not prejudging Obama by thinking that he is more than likely a typical politician. He ran for the job, after all. To paraphrase Douglas Adams, anyone who wants to be president isn’t qualified to do the job. That broad brush hits presidential candidates and winners from both parties, going back to the Whigs and Torries. You get the kind of power that comes from going to Washington, and you’d have to be Jesus Christ not to be corrupted at least a little by it (or whatever your respective perfect deity is).
(and I mean ‘going to Washington’ not simply as president. As ANYONE who works in the government. Apparently our Reps and Senators think they are God too)
We the People get the government we collectively deserve. BattleCry’s text wall is only so much verbiage, because it has nothing to do with how we need to function. I wasn’t going to bother addressing his rambling rant for that reason. However, as a favor to you, I will shoot down his passage in five short words: It is what it is.
I call ‘cliche’ on you.
And I call “cliche” on BattleCry. I used to make the same argument before I learned enough about the real world to have a material opinion.
As soon as BattleCry calls “cliche” on you, we’ll have a “cliche triangle!” Won’t that be fun?
BTW, if this is how you return favors, I hope you don’t need help moving very often…
“Nothing to do with how we need to function”?
So the basis of ALL LAWS IN THIS NATION, the Constitution, has nothing to do with how we need to function? Lemme esplain something to you Lucy:
Now I know how hard it is for you enlightened types to understand this concept, so maybe I should try doing this in bullet points:
We are NOT a or the Great Society
Our Federal Government was NEVER designed to be this Large
The Truly Great Presidents in our history all saw the government as an adversary, but also a necessity.
No nation over 100 million has ever implemented any version of Marxism effectively in any shape or form.
In a true capitalist democracy, the governement works for the will of the people and protects the people from banks.
Today the people and the government work for the will of the banks.
This is NOT “how we need to function”.
Our Founding Fathers, while imperfect, created the greatest single document in the history of law when they created the Constitution. This didn’t happen overnight, it took over 30 years. And they borrowed (or stole) ideas from all around the civilized world of their time to write it. It would do us well to adhere to it not only in it’s form but in its spirit. And while it may have taken time for us to come around on some very serious issues (slavery, women’s voting rights, etc) the Constitution was the ultimate arguement FOR all of those freedoms that are now common place and rightly so.
And if I am a cliche, then you are a farce. You slam on someone for not giving the Chosen One a “chance” when, (and I’m quite confident this is true) you certainly never did the same for Bush or any other Rep candidate.
You are puppet, a marionette, a lapdog, and most importantly, you suffer from political spousal abuse.
“Honey, your husband isn’t supposed to hit you. He’s supposed to love you, protect you if need be, and support your goals and make you happy.”
“eh…it is what it is, if I leave him I’ll have nothing”
Complacency in the face of failure is a special kind of cowardice.
Your particular brand of cowardice sickens me the most. You’d rather just accept the world as is instead of trying to pinpoint where we went off track and fix it. You can no longer mover forward when the weight of the past brings you to your knees.
There will come a day in this country when we will all have to make a choice. You will either stand with the Constitution, or you will run from it. And I say “run” because those of us that stand strong, will force you and yours from power.
PS, Air America got yanked from my local AM station for the second time in two years for low ratings. Stick that in your governement funded Crack pipe and smoke it.
I don’t need you to “esplain” anything to me. Frankly, I would sooner take instructions from a dog named “Sam.” I used to write similar blatherings in my journal as a teen. (Like you, I had all the answers back then.)
You are arguing against someone you made up in your head. You are not The Keeper of the Great Truths, dudelet.
FYI, my “need to function” referenced the gap between theory and practicality. Way to pull it out of context! I didn’t call *you* a cliché: I called your *argument* cliché, and I stand by my assessment. The reference to froo giving Obama a chance dates back across many threads, so you’re talking out of school there. Also, nowhere in my brief post to froo did I endorse complacency, so, again, you’re dry humping a straw man.
The political spousal abuse was a funny line—I loled. I also loled at the prospect of you and yours forcing me and mine from our lofty positions on high. As funny as it was (considering my decidedly *not* lofty status), it again reflects the fact that you are arguing with a fictitious character, but act like you’re talking to me. Does schizophrenia run in your family?
The “Air America = low ratings” has been brilliantly debated in the past, by PK’s own Minerva146. If anyone remembers which LOL that was, please enlighten this gentle soul.
Here’s part of the Minerva thread
http://punditkitchen.com/2008/11/15/political-pictures-any-last-words-fox/#comment-72291 if that doesn’t go through search “any last words fox”
The problem with your arguement is that the Constitution is NOT a theory. It’s an actual functional document, one that our entire society is based of off.
As for this “ohhhh, my bad, I’m not hating on you, I’m just in disagreement with your views” line, you can just stuff it and here’s why. By saying that, you then had no issues with Hitler as a human being, just his intense hatred of jews. This is the same arguement as “punish the act, not the pervayor”. Both are the product of the psuedo intellectual.
so therefore if you do take issue with a person’s arguement, then you take issue with the person, as their make up can be determined by their words and their deeds.
My evaluation of you stretches over many LOL’s dating back to before the election. And it is only solidified by a post you have in this thread where you state you wish you had the backbone to stand up to your family.
I you cannot stand up to those that love you, then how will you ever stand up to those that loathe you?
As I said, your particular kind of cowardice sickens me the most.
BC, I haven’t got time nor patience to dissect you fully, so I’m just going to hit two points.
Do you have any idea how asinine these two statements are, expecially right next to each other? Just to begin with, no nation has ever implemented Marxism, full stop. No nation has ever actually tried. Why? Because no sort of dictatorship, proletariat or otherwise, ever gives way willingly. But the more important point is that you have to be on acid to look around at what’s happening in this country and see Marxism.
OTOH, “in a true capitalist democracy, the government…protects the people from banks“?!? You really must be on acid. In a “true capitalist” anything, the government leaves the bloody markets alone and trusts them to ve self-correcting – trusts market forces to cure all ills because the people will simply withhold their money from being spent on anything hostile to their interests. Any system wherein “government…protects the people from banks” is a mixed system, incorporating elements of capitalism and socialism to create markets with a level of oversight and management appropriate to the health and safety of society as a whole. Such systems require near constant tinkering, because actors in the “free” market are astonishingly creative at finding new ways to fnck people over.
When you’ve come down fully from your acid trip, come back and we’ll talk again.
@BC: Considering that you and I are discussing issues, not acting, you are as “cowardly” as they come. If you can’t understand the difference between ad hominem attack and debate (and you’ve presented no evidence thereof), then might I suggest that you look at the cute puppeh and kitteh LOLs. They’re darling!
Unlike Slan’s rosy assessment, I’ll wager that someone on both acid and meth would make more sense than you. You really don’t have a clue, and the more you type, the more it shows…
In bed?
Oops! Thanks for the link! In return, may I direct you to look up Godwin’s Law. the revelation will help you in future.
@DWN: Not this time.
Thank god for small favors…
BC, it’s clear from how thoroughly you embrace the ad hominem fallacy – and how you rush blindly and headlong into a wanging – that you are far younger and less experienced than any of us had previously realized. When you’re a bit older, and have had some amount of life experience (getting to know and care about someone before you realize they disagree with you on a significant point appears to be the test of maturity that will make or break you), then I’ll be happy to debate with you on any subject.
Until then, as rho^2 said, the kittehs are very nice and you should go look at them.
@DWN: Not to criticize, but I think your WANG is
missing a cue…
Mmm, it is tired today but I will correct the matter.
Wang bang thank you ma’am.
I beat my meat upon this spam.
Wang bang thank you sir.
Since when did this b*tch have fur?
Wang bang I did type
To be my meat upon this tripe.
Wang bang this did pwn.
Because this typed up sh*t is my own.
Thank you. I’m sure BC will find your Wang
comforting.
Still had a spelling error. Damn.
Works either way, imho.
Glad you approve. I figured you would enjoy.
Oh, but Clinton got a blowjob! (linky)
Self-serving, but TOTALLY ROCKS in a non-presidential way
Totally ROCKS! (Everybody just ignore froo’s “self-serving”
comment, as it was self-serving.)
What about soft-serve? Can we have that?
Take your Lactaid first, Jane. We don’t need another *incident.”
No, no, no, you’re thinking of the aspara-gas
Either way, we don’t need anymore fall-out reaching the beautiful large island of Australia.
*declares moment of silence in memory of the wallabies*
I’ve never found asparagus makes me fart…
but stinky urine… whoof! Nasty!
Fresh asparagus seems to be fine with me, too. But it may well affect others – the same seems to apply with broccoli. Never mind the wallabies, where’s Eddie?
Dunno. I’ve been wondering, too. I miss him!
To my knowledge, he didn’t say goodbye, or tell anyone when he’ll be back. Eds has gone and come back before, though, so he’ll turn up eventually, I hope.
I’m missing Seth, too.
And distracted us from the more important target, the Taliban in Afghanistan, which has grown stronger again and more entrenched so that now refocusing and using a “surge” may not be enough to complete the job SEVEN years later!
The fact that people in the Afghan govt have known links to the opium trade doesn’t help the credibility of the govt the ‘Allies’ set up and the Taliban were always going to be set for a come back…
Um…hate to burst your bubble, but sanctions were falling apart. Saddam was cheating BIG TIME on the Oil for Food program and bulking up his internal security apparatus. The Iraqi army was a lot more than a few helos (someone’s comment below)–try four corps of Republican Guard and five Corps of Regular Army. If you paid attention during OIF, the Regulars were actually standing and fighting. THey were the guys that grabbed the supply unit, necessitating the Ranger operation to grab whatshername from West Virginia out of that hospital. As to the connection between Saddam and 9/11, that was never an argument, although there were certainly a number of suspicious links. If you recall, Bush’s speech that night addressed the nation’s intention to bring to justice those who had perpetrated the acts of that morning. Subsequent speeches broadened the focus from the planners of the 9/11 attack to terrorism generally (specifically those who intend to destroy America and its ideals). Allow me to quote the man.
“The search is underway for those who were behind these evil acts. I have directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and to bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.”
“America and our friends and allies join with all those who want peace and security in the world,and we stand together to win the war against terrorism.”
“This is a day when all Americans from every walk of life unite in our resolve for justice and peace. America has stood down enemies before, and we will do so this time.”
Saddam’s Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism, according to…the US State Department…for years prior to 2003. Iraq was allowing terrorists to camp out and train in Iraq. Some of the more amazing “gets” of terrorists immediately after 9/11 were found (wait for it) IN BAGHDAD. So, if 1) we are battling terrorism, 2) we make no distinction between the terrorists and those that harbor them, and 3) Saddam’s Iraq was harboring terrorists (and had for years), then why wouldn’t we go do something about Saddam, particularly if he was getting stronger and stronger all the time? Like it or not, war with Iraq was coming, and fighting them in 2003 was far preferable to fighting them in 2006 or later. If you think Iraq has been a mess after the more or less bloodless “war” in 2003, just imagine what it would have been like if they’d actually fought us toe-to-toe.
Get off the WMD issue–this war was coming, and WMD was the thing that brought us the biggest coalition. It was far from being the only thing that mattered or that Bush based the argument in favor of war upon.
So you’re in that small percentage that believes Bush didn’t get us into
a needless war? Wow. Do aliens visit you, too?
so why didn’t you in this case? Oh, let me guess: Zimbabwe has got no oil?
I pointed this out earlier… They denied it
That’s true…in my second job as Minister of Natural Resources for the government of Zimbabwe (in which, by the way, I was voted Most Popular Minister for three years in a row!), I vehemently deny that we have no oil!
Sad but true, maybe the violent option would be the good one against this guy. But only if we don’t do it like Iraq.
Not enough oil for anyone to care…
But they have diamonds and killer white apes!!!
and a cyclopean city made of basalt… gotta love that.
I know I would march to conquer a fun area.
I think the Brits should take care of it. At base, the mess in Zimbabwe really is all their fault.
The Brits love making messes in other countries and then acting condescending later, during, and before the whole debacle. Practically their hobby. Then again, there isn’t much space left to make colonies to shun later so I suppose they could always pick up a new hobby. But they’ll be damned before they give up the condescension.
/babbling
Well, it wouldn’t be a popular move, but maybe they should consider re-colonizing. It would be a hard, treacherous road, but it beats the heck out of having yet another failed state in Africa.
The other option would be to just recognize that genocide is practically the continental sport and just let them get on with it. It’s really not our concern, is it?
Either could work for me. I do have a friend in South Africa I would like to see kept out of their reindeer games but not that I honestly have a choice so I find that apathy fits me. And off to work I go since we are depressing and soulless topics.
Are on… grammar fail
In this hell hole, who’d notice
I would, but in the spirit of the season, I’d hold my grammar-nazi tendencies at bay. BTW, happy Boxing Day, Unc!
Also, it’s entirely possible that we, the posters of PK, constitute depressing and soulless topics in and of ourselves.
Because you said Nazi, I shall wang. God saw this and was pleased which makes me doubt his honorable intentions…
As for depressing, the fish liver is actually working. I haven’t had a down spell in days which is honestly a big deal for me. However, I notice that I am still the same asshole I was before so soulless still applies.
I need to remember to e-hump the person who suggested those damn choke hazards with much glee for a simple solution to some of my more aggravating mood issues.
*grabs a now more happy DWN and dances around*
*chuckles and dances*
Ah, but I did not capitalize the n-word, so I was using it in a purely metaphorical sense, rather than as a proper noun… ah forget it. It’s not a party until the DeathWang makes an appearance!
The Wang laws do not make a distinction with capitalization. If I am going to shoot every wolf that nears my chicken coup, rest assured that I won’t hesitate to snag a coyote who strays too close too. ; )
I need theme music for DeathWang. Sounds like a very horrible Adam West Batman villain…
I humbly suggest the intro from Queen’s “Innuendo.”
Oooh, I must refresh my memory this evening when I am at home with computer speakers. Sounds like a good idea though.
Good for you!! That’s a fine bit of cheerful holiday news!
AH GHOST!!! *gets dust buster and chases to theme of Yakkity Sax*
YIKES!!! Hey wait, I’m just smoke! French ciggy-butt smoke! You know, hanging in the air over the coffee?!?!! Snifff me!
Damn, that was some innuendo for you, DWN ;o)
*hates cig smoke with passion. Retreats and comes back with ULTRA DUST BUSTER!!!*
WAIT!! pdq’s reincarnated! Call off your suck squad, NAO!!
Uh… there’s a suck squad? Geez, yet another memo I didn’t get. I need a secretary. Hmm… then again, if I had a secretary, maybe I wouldn’t need the squad.
LOL, the point you made was epic.
Glad you are feeling better! I’m trying to recover emotionally from another Lovely Family Christmas. Among the highlights, my mom made me cry at dinner and today she’s pissed off at me for “embarrassing her” by getting upset. So much fun.
At least my grumpiness is situational, for which I can be glad.
My holidays were rather depressing but I somehow just didn’t linger over it. I did what I could to keep Lynn in good spirits and just got over it. My personality didn’t change and I still got annoyed by it but I dunno. Just didn’t dwell. I went home and killed things on my PS2, had some sex, and went to sleep.
But damn are those things choke hazards… @_@
I am sorry to hear about your holiday though. Mine wasn’t a bed of roses by no means but I had hoped my friends on here would fair better. It is rather frustrating when people get mad at you for being upset when they made you upset in the first place. *hugs*
I’m no friend of yours but I have had a pretty good Xmas so far, and have one of my old, ex-Army, friend and his wife for the New Year festivities
Should be excellent…
Tomorrow, we’re hauling my aged mother back to the ancestral pile.
We’re very dull at Xmas… not a single blazing row…
Um right, have fun with that…
I’m afraid we did… and will :¬)
Only bad Xmas I remember was 2002, when I had to face the fact that my dad wasn’t likely to see Xmas 03.
Uh huh, gotcha.
Christmas was fun. Last time my mother in law visited, she left behind a sweater. I spent weeks holding it up to our german shepard’s nose and then whacking him on the nose, to the point that if he even smelled her perfume, he’d go beserk.
Then when my In Laws dropped in unannounced on Christmas Eve….
well, lets say I was laughing too hard to film it……
TFF!! Please tell me you have plans to train a horse to
neigh whenever her name is spoken…
“my mom made me cry at dinner and today she’s pissed off at me for “embarrassing her” by getting upset.”
`
Sorry you had such a crappy Christmas, yet oddly relieved that my relatives aren’t the only ones who pull this sh*t.
A regular argument is annoying but bearable. The kind of argument that goes like this:
1. Dysfunctional relative insults you and/or kicks you in the shins and/or stabs you with a butcher knife
2. You go, “OW! Quit it!”
3. Dysfunctional relative says something like, “You’re so oversensitive! Why do you have to make such a big deal about everything?”
4. Other buttinsky relative says to you, “You’d better stop aggravating Dysfunctionella; she’s under a lot of stress”
is totally crazy making.
Tessie, I’m only going to say this once:
GET. OUT. OF. MY. HEAD. !!!
Perhaps we’re related. You’ve just written the script for every gathering my family endeavors. If you’re not crazy when you walk in, you would be insane if crazy didn’t make you crazy. This year, I tried laughing at an aunt who likes making personal digs, then calling her victim “sensitive,” or the like. There was limited success, which was more than I had anticipated. Nothing was learned, but we all survived. Borrowing a phrase aviation, any family gathering you can walk away from is a good gathering.
My family exactly! Wow. I sincerely hope my generation can be the one to break the crazy cycle.
ZOMG, you guys! I almost didn’t post this because a) it’s too depressing and b) I half suspected that my relatives really are worse than everybody else’s, all of whom would back away slowly, muttering, “uh, how about that?” and avoiding eye contact.
What’s even weirder is that, whenever I go back East to visit, one of many things that Dysfunctionella repeatedly harangues me about (because I can never just politely decline ONCE and consider the subject closed, heaven forbid) is why I don’t visit more often. Besides the fact that “Because I can barely get through the time I have to spend with you as it is” wouldn’t be very nice, she LITERALLY WOULD NOT UNDERSTAND what I meant. It truly never seems to occur to her (nor, apparently, to others like her) that other people don’t really like being treated like crap.
I suppose there are people who would think that spending the holidays with the innertoobz and a stack of library books is depressing and pathetic. I think about one interpretation of “Peace on Earth” is my nice, quiet, cozy house where nobody yells at me for putting a magazine back in the wrong place in the bathroom magazine holder, and reach for the next book in the stack.
Also, I included a link to a really good/awful essay you guys might like. Enjoy!
I guess our crazy relatives have helped deform who we are today. *rimshot*
What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger? Perhaps, but certainly what nearly kills you definitely makes you want to avoid it, in the name of sanity.
Ever been stabbed three times with fake fingernails while putting together a jigsaw puzzle?
Ever been told that you’re a lot prettier in a photo than you ever were in person?
Ever had the contents of your plate inspected, and asked why you didn’t select a certain food?
Ever been asked 15 years in a row, “Now what is it you do again?” while at the same job for 15 years?
Ever been told you were “too good” to attend a function to which you weren’t invited?
Ever been blamed for something your mother did as a child because “you’re just like her?”
Ever make fake trips to the bathroom for the relief of solitude?
Ever been called the next day and told that you *need* to call someone and apologize for ignoring an insult?
*hugs and holds “innertoobz and a stack of library books”*
…just ignore me: I’m too sensitive.
Hooray for Christmas, solitude and the comfort of the book. Hooray for people who know us well enough to get the RIGHT books. Actually, I didn’t get too many books (but I’m looking forward to a cold beer, a place by the in-laws’ pool and opening Chris Patten’s newest).
Trips to the bathroom were a regular feature, same reason. Being sent to my room for two hours was something else to look forward to.
Every holiday my sister finds something to be b!tchy at my mother about, and she always ends up saying “I shouldn’t have come.” At Thanksgiving I finally gave in to the impulse to tell her she was right.
That probably won’t keep her from coming to the family chanukah gathering tonight, though. And being a pillock about something or other.
@OMG: Hooray for the bathroom! No one gave me books this year. Jeff Foxworthy must finally be slowing down.
@slan: Every Christmas, my mother’s sister comes to my parents house and insults each of us in turn. I have been tempted to list her insults to her face, then ask her why she bothers to show up. Oh well, there’s always next year…
Love that essay, Tessie! That definitely describes both my mom AND my ex-husband, who finally went off in a huff about 5 years after we divorced because (as far as I can tell) our kids reached the age where their universes did not revolve around him. Come to think of it, a holiday with just my mom is nowhere near the mindblowing levels of insanity as a holiday with the two of them in the same room was. Small things to be thankful for, I guess!
Oh, how about this? In my family, one kid is allowed to have food preferences (the Kid Who Can Do No Wrong….heh.). Everyone else is being a giant pain in the ass. Two of my daughters have been vegetarian at some point, and one of them still doesn’t eat beef or pork (personal thing). Apparently they
do this just to annoy my mother. My mother likes to make a huge deal out of serving a big beef roast every Christmas. This means I take responsibility for bringing an alternate main dish for my non-beef-eating daughter. She also makes a point never to cook the roast more than bloody rare. Guess who likes the roast bloody rare? She does. Does anyone else? Not judging rom the way we all grab small exterior pieces. Does she care? No, because the way we like our meat cooked is wrong.
Oh, and I got a book I really, really wanted for Christmas (happy!). Linked under my name.
What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger?
I can fairly say it’s made me stranger; does that count?
Ever been told that you’re a lot prettier in a photo than you ever were in person?
`
Good God, no! I flatter myself that I’m reasonably attractive in person, but for some inexplicable reason, I photograph like Godzilla’s ass. Better that than the reverse, I suppose.
`
Ever had the contents of your plate inspected, and asked why you didn’t select a certain food?
`
Similarly, at the same meal a) being asked if that’s all you’re going to eat, don’t you like it, etc.; and b) snarky comment on how fat you are (regardless of what you actually weigh/look like). Bonus points if the same person says both things.
`
Ever been asked 15 years in a row, “Now what is it you do again?” while at the same job for 15 years?
`
Here’s a classic conversation that actually happened:
Uncle Ass: So how’s school?
Me: I graduated.
Uncle Ass: So when are you gonna get a job, aha-ha-har?
Me: I already have one.
Uncle Ass: So when are you gonna get a promotion, aha-ha-har?
Me: I just got one.
I swear to God, he looked so depressed that I almost felt sorry for him. Need it be mentioned that his daughter has never had a steady job?
`
Ever been blamed for something your mother did as a child because “you’re just like her?”
`
Ooh! I just love science fiction! “Young Lady, what have I told you about fooling around with that time-space continuum? Well, you’re grounded! No more time travel for you!”
`
What absolutely amazes me is that all these clearly insane people seem to lead reasonably normal lives. None of them have been fired from their jobs by asking their boss if he actually paid to have the stylist do that to his hair, or thrown into jail for telling the cop that pulled them over that his double chin looks disgusting.
*sigh*
The Muslim folks who think throwing a shoe is the most insulting thing imaginable should spend Ramadan with our relatives; it would give them a whole new worldview.
@diss & Tess: I love you gals!
I’m glad we can (mostly) laugh at our travails!! *group hug*
@diss: You might consider conning your girls into avoiding the barely dead roast beast entirely, and the three of you can eat only the main dish that you bring. I’m thinking the excess left overs may make a nice statement. (I don’t eat red meat, so I totally sympathize with your daughter.)
@Tess: You always manage to crack me up! I would say your humor is worth the initial pain, but, well, you know…
Uncle Ass is a classic. It would be fun to be related to you, but I’m glad your Uncle Ass never met my Aunt Malevola.
Actually, if I brought another main dish nobody’d eat the moo-ing roast and I’d get blamed for being passive-aggressive. I may have to try that. My informal poll reveals that nobody actually likes it that way, that as I suspected we are all desperately searching for outside pieces, and that people take the leftovers home and microwave them.
I’ve already decided, it may make me the Queen Bitch
Daughter, but I’m not ruining everyone’s Christmas next year by spending it with her.
If it is any consolation, I adore the people above me in this thread tangent. I just lack the appropriate words to show my sympathy.
Actually, if the US hadn’t made a precondition of a time table to break down the British empire, as a pre-condition for naval support prior to Roosevelt engineering the war with Japan, then the whole thing would have been better organised. Basically, it was rushed for short term gain, driven by the US…
In the end though, it shortened the American hegemony quite well, since now it’s paved the way for the NEXT economic superpower, China to get where it’s going….
In the first place, if the Brits hadn’t made a habit of imperialism it wouldn’t have been an issue. Secondly, the Brits could have told Roosevelt to feck off. What is it with you guys, is there a clause in some act of parliament that states your PM must fellate the American president?
Hey, they are in the twelve step program to break that habit and are doing a decent job if you ask me. Though you can see the twitch in their eye that they just want another sip.
Basically, the Germans had more submarines and we were starving. The only people who could possibly help were the Americans… there again, Roosevelt would have dealt as happily with a Nazi Europe as other American presidents have sucked arse on any rich tyrant going, and propped up more bloody handed dictators than had dealt with Mother Theresa. Basically, you elect these scum, and defend them like family until their caught with their pecker out… and this ain’t just the dodgy uncle you don’t let get near the bourbon aor young teen girls… this is trading the planet by the pound to the highest bidder… shame the Creepy Uncle sold us all into bankruptcy and war without end… still, it’s nice to know that his retirement will be heavily guarded and pretty well paid…
So, I’d keep the ‘moral superiority’ and ‘who’s to blame’ down to a dull
roar if I were you. Only good thing about this is that I get to watch the fall of the Imperial United States…
Two words Unc… “Neville Chamberlain.” But I’m not trying to paint the US as angels. You’re not going to get any argument from me on the “propping up dictators” claim. I will say that only approximately half the electorate at any given time will be defending the president. The other half will be merrily attempting to lynch him. We don’t have any particular monopoly on electing scum, however; and I do believe that Obama is a cut (perhaps several cuts) above our normal grade of politician.
*crosses fingers*
*also crosses fingers and hands bill covertly for the puppy skin coat I just delivered*
Chamberlain… can’t disagree, since e just screwed the pooch from the Treaty of Versailles forward. He SHOULD have stood up to the French, rather than joining in on the punitive damages. His regret over that coloured his dealings with the Germans (that and his distaste for Mussolini… it was his fault the Italians went in with Hitler. Nev and the French). He was a moron, I’m afraid.
We all get them from time to time. We’ll be living down Bush well into the 2200’s, should we last that long.
Balkanisation beckons… followed by 100 years of wars over water and domestic oil…
Thanks for the reminder to re-read Robert Heinlein’s Friday sometime soon. There are aspects of it I really don’t care for, but some interesting ideas and characters nonetheless, and I want now to try to recreate his map for the Balkanisation of the US.
His notion of a “Chicago Imperium” was just loopy, though; no fragment of the US would fail to remain a republic except possibly for the rise of a Dixie theocracy.
Erm, you might wanna check your history there.
Chamberlain had bugger all to do with Versaille, you wanna blame someone for Versaille then it’s Lloyd George’s liberals you wanna blame, not Chamberlain.
He only became PM in 37, so blaming him for British foreign policy from 1919 onwards is just nonsensical. As is blaming him, or indeed Britain, for pushing Mussolini and Hitler together. We didn’t do a damn thing when the Italians invaded Abyssinia which is usually viewed as the catalyst for the German Italian alliance.
Yes, but you also gave the world Monty Python and Douglas Adams, and for me, that set the rest in balance.
You speak for yourself on the screw up thing… the ‘asshole’ tag I’ve worked hard for.
Britain effectively cut its throat as an imperial power by fighting world war 1, the , the cost meant that sustaining the Empire was going to become impossible, it had it had sod all to do with America.
Indeed… however, the deal cut in WWII meant that the dismantling Empire was rushed. Nothing like buying the pocket universe view of history.
The only agreement I can think of that you may be referring to is the Atlantic Charter of 1941, that in veiled terms called for the end of the British Empire. However, no timetable was mentioned in it. It was just a statement of intent more than anything else.
I think you’re putting too much significance on that agreement over other factors. For instance, India and Pakistan got independence within 3 years of the war ending, in no small part due to a couple of million Indians volunteering to fight in the war. Much of Africa had to wait into the 60s for independence, and frankly, with the state of the British economy in the 60s and 70s we’d had been dumping colonies left, right and centre irrespective of any agreements with anyone.
And let’s not forget, the relevant country for this thread didn’t get proper independence until 1980. So damn near 40 years after the signing of the Atlantic Charter hardly counts as rushing.
Yes because on the British time scale it would have actually happened… Riiiight and I have a bridge to sell you. Great for jumping.
If you think the British wouldn’t have divested of the Empire, then you’re actually dimmer that I think you are, and that’s pretty dim on a good day…
The time scale inflicted resulted in nothing but destabilising both Indian and Africa.
I tend to think that an imperialist is an imperialist but continue insulting my intelligence since I know it makes you happy. I am aware that rushing a job can botch it entirely but I also find it funny that a nation of imperialists would just give things up without a fight or at least a drive by argument. I am sure it would have happened eventually, perhaps when I became a grandfather and you moldering in your grave.
It was a choice… becoming part of Greater Germany or the 51st state
It’s a no brainier.
Damn… what kind of country would let itself be run by a lawless, election stealing tyrant? Oh, wait…
more to the point, one who drove the economy of his country into the gorund for personal gain?
No… you’re right… nothing to see here…
Did they try to edit out his moustache with Paint or is that how it actually looks?
I just noticed that…And now it’s bothering me. It has to be edited (badly).
That’s not his moustache, but just an emmmm dent :p
He has two, thin, lines of hair either side of the philtrum
Very slimming, I must say. Makes him look a stone thinner.
He could stand to be a stone or two taller. Drop them right on top of his head.
I read that his ideal height is -6 feet…
Agh, by the FSM’s meatballs… Mugabe makes Bush look like a model of enlightened leadership.
FSM? Me sooo ignorant, but I do seek enlightenment.
Flying Spaghetti Monster. Here, have a wiki. :^)
Can I just say that for all the bemoaning of the Empire we used to have we actually improved these countries. We gave them schools, transportation services, hospitals, and housing. In short we gave them a civilisation whilst they were busy living in mud huts, mutilating women and killing each other at the drop of a hat, which they still seem intent on doing now. These African countries have had independence for around about 40 years with a ready made infrastructure courtesy of the UK.
You would have thought they would have the intelligence to actually sort themselves out and govern themselves properly, but instead as soon as the Brits pull out they go back to corruption, greed and genocide and then expect handouts from the people they kicked out in the first place when it goes wrong! And don’t try and use the excuse that they have no idea because they were poor opressed natives; we actually used to employ educated native people in the civil service of that country, so they do know how to run a country properly, they just choose not to because its easier to be corrupt and beg for aid, most of which ends up lining a Swiss Bank account of the ruler and not going to the people. I worked for an aid agency, I know what goes on and I am well aware of the mindset that prevails.
Zimbabwe used to be a fantastic productive country until Mugabe got in. He actively set about reclaiming the farms of white people (fair play) but then deliberately started a campaign of destroying them and/or telling people not to grow stuff. Zimbabwe used to be one of the main food producers in Africa. Since then he has destroyed that country. Are you telling me that the rigged elections, beatings, killing, disappearences, food shortages and cholera are all the UK’s fault? Funny, they all seem to have arrived after Mugabe took to power. The sad thing is that people like Mugabe are all over Africa in one form or another, and it’s has nothing to do with the UK now. Africa needs to learn some responsibility and grow up.
I believe I’ll allow Monty Python to refute you:
Reg: All right, Stan. Don’t labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?
Xerxes: The aqueduct.
Reg: Oh yeah, yeah they gave us that. Yeah. That’s true.
Masked Activist: And the sanitation!
Stan: Oh yes… sanitation, Reg, you remember what the city used to be like.
Reg: All right, I’ll grant you that the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done…
Matthias: And the roads…
Reg: (sharply) Well yes obviously the roads… the roads go without saying. But apart from the aqueduct, the sanitation and the roads…
Another Masked Activist: Irrigation…
Other Masked Voices: Medicine… Education… Health…
Reg: Yes… all right, fair enough…
Activist Near Front: And the wine…
Omnes: Oh yes! True!
Francis: Yeah. That’s something we’d really miss if the Romans left, Reg.
Masked Activist at Back: Public baths!
Stan: And it’s safe to walk in the streets at night now.
Francis: Yes, they certainly know how to keep order… (general nodding)… let’s face it, they’re the only ones who could in a place like this.
(more general murmurs of agreement)
Reg: All right… all right… but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order… what have the Romans done for us?
Xerxes: Brought peace!
Reg: (very angry, he’s not having a good meeting at all) What!? Oh… (scornfully) Peace, yes… shut up!
Wow, mind altering data on this thread, thank you all for the insightful comments!
Fantastically put.